• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Balancing Objective Markers and Subjective Experience in Eating Disorder Diagnoses: Commentary on Dang et al. (2024).平衡饮食障碍诊断中的客观指标和主观体验:丹等人(2024)的评论。
Int J Eat Disord. 2024 Oct;57(10):2049-2052. doi: 10.1002/eat.24268. Epub 2024 Oct 25.
2
Guidelines for Rigorous and Reproducible Research on Other Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder: Commentary on Dang et al. (2024).关于其他特定进食障碍的严谨和可重复研究指南:评 Dang 等人(2024 年)。
Int J Eat Disord. 2024 Oct;57(10):2041-2044. doi: 10.1002/eat.24262. Epub 2024 Oct 25.
3
Taking a Global View of the OSFED Category From Inside and Outside the DSM-5: Comment on Dang et al. 2024.从 DSM-5 内外看 OSFED 类别之全球视野:评 Dang 等人,2024 年。
Int J Eat Disord. 2024 Oct;57(10):2045-2048. doi: 10.1002/eat.24267. Epub 2024 Oct 25.
4
OSFED Subtypes: The Need for Better Definitions.OSFED 亚型:更好定义的需求。
Int J Eat Disord. 2024 Oct;57(10):2053-2055. doi: 10.1002/eat.24275. Epub 2024 Oct 25.
5
Drive for thinness provides an alternative, more meaningful, severity indicator than the DSM-5 severity indices for eating disorders.追求苗条身材为进食障碍提供了一个比 DSM-5 严重程度指标更有意义的替代严重程度指标。
Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2021 May;29(3):482-498. doi: 10.1002/erv.2776. Epub 2020 Sep 22.
6
Comparing ICD-11 and DSM-5 eating disorder diagnoses with the Munich eating and feeding disorder questionnaire (ED-Quest).将国际疾病分类第11版(ICD-11)和精神疾病诊断与统计手册第5版(DSM-5)的饮食失调诊断与慕尼黑饮食和喂养障碍问卷(ED-Quest)进行比较。
Int J Eat Disord. 2023 Sep;56(9):1826-1831. doi: 10.1002/eat.24010. Epub 2023 Jun 13.
7
Food addiction in a Spanish sample of eating disorders: DSM-5 diagnostic subtype differentiation and validation data.西班牙进食障碍样本中的食物成瘾:DSM-5 诊断亚型的区分和验证数据。
Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2014 Nov;22(6):389-96. doi: 10.1002/erv.2311. Epub 2014 Aug 20.
8
Outcomes in people with eating disorders: a transdiagnostic and disorder-specific systematic review, meta-analysis and multivariable meta-regression analysis.饮食失调患者的结局:一项跨诊断和特定疾病的系统评价、荟萃分析及多变量荟萃回归分析。
World Psychiatry. 2024 Feb;23(1):124-138. doi: 10.1002/wps.21182.
9
Non-suicidal self-injury among individuals with an eating disorder: A systematic review and prevalence meta-analysis.非自杀性自伤行为在进食障碍个体中的研究:系统评价和流行率荟萃分析。
Int J Eat Disord. 2024 Feb;57(2):223-248. doi: 10.1002/eat.24088. Epub 2023 Dec 1.
10
Impairments among DSM-5 eating disorders: A systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis.《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5)中饮食失调症的损害:一项系统评价与多层次荟萃分析。
Clin Psychol Rev. 2023 Apr;101:102267. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102267. Epub 2023 Mar 3.

引用本文的文献

1
Bulimia nervosa severity levels based on shape/weight overvaluation explain more variance in clinical characteristics than DSM-5 severity levels.基于对体型/体重的过度重视划分的神经性贪食症严重程度等级,相较于《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5)的严重程度等级,能解释更多临床特征方面的差异。
Psychol Med. 2025 Jun 30;55:e181. doi: 10.1017/S0033291725100597.

本文引用的文献

1
Taking a Deeper Dive Into OSFED Subtypes: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.深入探讨 OSFED 亚型:一项荟萃分析和系统评价。
Int J Eat Disord. 2024 Oct;57(10):2006-2040. doi: 10.1002/eat.24280. Epub 2024 Oct 25.

平衡饮食障碍诊断中的客观指标和主观体验:丹等人(2024)的评论。

Balancing Objective Markers and Subjective Experience in Eating Disorder Diagnoses: Commentary on Dang et al. (2024).

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.

Institute for Women's Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.

出版信息

Int J Eat Disord. 2024 Oct;57(10):2049-2052. doi: 10.1002/eat.24268. Epub 2024 Oct 25.

DOI:10.1002/eat.24268
PMID:39449555
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11524757/
Abstract

The results of Dang et al.'s recent systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that individuals diagnosed with other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED) and those diagnosed with specified eating disorders (EDs, such as bulimia nervosa) endorse similar, elevated levels of ED-related cognitions (but not behaviors). The DSM has traditionally conceptualized EDs primarily as disturbances in eating behavior, and the diagnostic boundaries for EDs are based on objective markers, such as behavioral frequencies and weight. Although focusing on objective markers for ED diagnoses and severity indices has advantages (e.g., clinical communication, measurement), pitfalls include diagnostic migration and low emphasis on ED cognitions. Dang et al.'s findings provide a basis for rethinking DSM's conceptualization of EDs as primarily behavioral. This commentary discusses the potential merits and challenges of emphasizing subjective cognitions when assigning ED diagnoses. We explore how objective markers (e.g., behavioral frequency, weight) and subjective experience (e.g., fear of weight gain) may be balanced to improve the clinical utility of ED diagnoses. In all, research that more deeply phenotypes the subjective experiences of people with EDs across contexts, identities, and cultures will enrich our understanding of eating pathology and may inform diagnostic revisions.

摘要

最近,Dang 等人的系统评价和荟萃分析结果表明,被诊断为其他特定进食或饮食障碍(OSFED)和被诊断为特定饮食障碍(如神经性贪食症)的个体,其与饮食障碍相关的认知(而非行为)水平相似,且升高。DSM 传统上主要将饮食障碍概念化为进食行为障碍,而饮食障碍的诊断界限则基于客观指标,如行为频率和体重。尽管关注饮食障碍诊断和严重程度指数的客观指标具有优势(例如,临床交流、测量),但也存在一些缺陷,包括诊断转移和对饮食障碍认知的重视不足。Dang 等人的研究结果为重新思考 DSM 将饮食障碍主要概念化为行为障碍提供了依据。本评论讨论了在进行饮食障碍诊断时强调主观认知的潜在优点和挑战。我们探讨了如何平衡客观指标(例如行为频率、体重)和主观体验(例如对体重增加的恐惧),以提高饮食障碍诊断的临床实用性。总之,对不同背景、身份和文化中的饮食障碍患者的主观体验进行更深入的表型研究,将丰富我们对进食病理的理解,并可能为诊断修订提供信息。